The World from Berlin: Afghan Legitimacy Chaos Leaves West in 'Dilemma with No Way Out'

• Print
• E-Mail
• Feedback

Editor's note: Shortly after posting Tuesday's press review, news emerged that Afghan President Hamid Karzai has accepted calls for a run-off vote. He descirbed the decision by Afghan election authorities to hold a run-off on Nov. 7 as "legal" and "constitutional."

So, what do we do now with Afghanistan? A United Nations-backed fraud investigation's report released Monday has made it clear that President Hamid Karzai is not the legitimately elected ruler of Afghanistan and that something needs to happen fast to correct the problem. The next issue, though, is figuring out the right approach.

The report by the Electoral Complaints Commission threw out nearly a third of Karzai's vote from the August 20 election, which leaves him with 48 percent -- rather than 54 percent -- of the vote in what was a 36-candidate race. In this case, the country's constitution calls for a run-off to be held with Abdullah Abdullah, the former Afghan foreign minister, who finished second in the balloting.

Although US officials expect him to do so at some point Tuesday, Karzai has yet to accept the legitimacy of the commission's finding. But it is unclear what will happen once he does. A run-off vote could be scheduled, but it is unclear whether it would return a more legitimate winner given the fact that approaching winter snows and a deteriorating security situation would most likely discourage voters from turning out for a second vote. Other options being put forward include having a power-sharing coalition government or even allowing a Loya Jirga -- that is, a meeting of a traditional Afghan council of elders -- to hammer out a solution.

Still, getting the parties to agree on the way forward will be difficult. Karzai risks losing his hold on power if he agrees to a run-off, but refusing to do so might mean losing legitimacy in the eyes of an increasingly skeptical and impatient West -- and their support. Abdullah, on the other hand, has stated through spokespeople that having "a coalition is against the law" and the he would prefer to have an interim government put in place until the spring, when a run-off could be held under presumably improved conditions.

In Tuesday's newspapers, German commentators can't agree on the best way forward, but they do agree that the situation is perilously grim.

The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes:

"From President Hamid Karzai's point of view, there are two unappealing options. On the one hand, if he bows to international pressure and acquiesces to a second vote, he could hold on to the support of Western nations. But he would also lose face in the eyes of his constituency, the Pashtuns."

"Karzai's second option would be to ignore all evidence of massive electoral fraud and refuse to hold a second vote. ... But if he did that, he would make any more cooperation with the 42 countries involved in reconstruction efforts immediately impossible. The United States has already stressed that it will only decide on whether to send additional troops and aid once the election drama has been settled. This foot-dragging can be interpreted as a very serious threat. If Karzai refuses to play ball, Western troops and assistance might abandon the president."

"The consequences of this would be catastrophic. If Karzai insists on being stubborn and staying in office, people will no longer be lenient toward Afghanistan and it would be hard to justify providing outside support to an illegitimate government. In quick order, there could be a swift withdrawal of soldiers, aid and billions. If that were to happen, life in Afghanistan would return to being dictated by archaic laws. Regional rulers, tribes and the Taliban would battle for power with all the deadly means at their disposal. Karzai would not survive the civil war. Which makes you wonder why he's having such a hard time choosing between these two options."

The center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes:

"By unwittingly collaborating with Karzai, its former darling, the international community has succeeded in boxing the country into an almost inescapable corner. If it were determined in the next few days that the incumbent actually was the winner in the first election, Afghans won't believe that everything was done fair and square. If a run-off were held, lower voter turnout could threaten any progress from being made in terms of legitimacy. And the third option isn't very promising either: If Karzai and Abdullah agreed to enter into a power-sharing government, voters might still feel cheated. Given their inherent centrifugal forces, a so-called 'national unity' government would be headed straight for new elections in the near future. The Taliban is sitting back calmly and watching this fiasco with a smirk. They couldn't make the international community and the hated Karzai government look any stupider than they are doing themselves."

The Financial Times Deutschland writes:

"The UN-backed Electoral Complaints Commission's report has thrown the allies involved in the NATO mission into a serious dilemma with no good way out."

"If there's one thing that's finally clear, it's that the president lacks democratic legitimacy. But the thing that is anything but clear is what the West should do about it. Under halfway normal conditions, there would only be one conceivable option: holding a runoff between Karzai and his most important challenger, Abdullah Abdullah, which is what the report envisions and the European Union is now calling for. But the fact is that conditions in Afghanistan are not normal, particularly because of the country's extremely tense security situation."

"On the other hand, although having a power-sharing government doesn't seem all that promising, it is still the best of all options. In comparison to having Karzai stay on as the sole ruler, it would enjoy a higher degree of legitimacy. Likewise, it would force the two opponents to reach agreements on important issues. And the international community would also have someone other than Karzai to work with."

"If we could do whatever we wanted with Afghanistan, having a runoff would obviously be a cleaner and more democratic solution. But the fact is that it's simply too dangerous. ... Risking the lives of many Afghans and NATO soldiers merely for exalted Western principles would be irresponsible."